Talk:The Fur Trade in Canada

Laziness in citing sources

I have cut this statement from the article because of inadequate sourcing:

"The destructive nature of European influence is still felt by First Nations to this day with many studies and sources noting the continued health issues and lower well being than the majority of Canada." The citation simply said: "See Statistics Canada website or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or UN Community Well Being Index, etc."

Which studies and sources? Where exactly can they be found on the Statistics Canada website or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada or the UN Community Well Being Index? Proper citations should be specific and verifiable. Bwark (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No offense, Bwark, but anyone who needs sources for the verity of that statement hasn't looked very hard ... and perhaps doesn't want to see the obvious. Actually this is a non-negotiable fact of the modern world.

Wikipedia requires 'Adequate sourcing' only when statements are questionable. That one is certainly not. Are your motives for excising this fact (recognized by Innis a century ago) questionable? Twang (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Who wrote this?

This is a seminal work in Canadian historiography, but it reads like an undergraduate book review - it's pretentious to the point of inaccuracy. Is there any(academic or otherwise) value in mentioning that Harris' work is "dry"? I'm not sure what you're expecting from an early twentieth-century academic historian, but most of them weren't aiming for entertainment value.

This needs a MAJOR overhaul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.207.225.87 (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

how about you edit it 2604:3D09:1483:2C00:2993:8DD1:2187:3162([[User talk:(talk)

Rename?

Perhaps we should rename this article to "The Fur Trade in Canada (book)" North8000 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article was already just renamed. IMO the new name is highly problematic; the title (The Fur Trade in Canada) does not match the article. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What's wrong with the title? An article about a book usually has the same title as the book, e.g. A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, The Fight for Canada, The Magic Mountain, and thousands of others. The suffix (book) is only added if the title would otherwise be ambiguous. -- Chrisahn (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, my concern is that title sounds like it is an article on the topic of the fur trade in Canada. But per the reasoning in your post I'm now fine with it as-is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Earlier, 172pp version

A much shorter 1927 book titled The Fur Trade of Canada also exists. Note of in place of in. (See e.g. signed copy of title page here: [[File:The_Fur-Trade_of_Canada,_by_H._A._Innis,_1927.jpg]] ... Worldcat editions list under multiple OCLC numbers. It would be great if the article included a description of this earlier (and more deluxe-looking!) version. Twang (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

@Onel5969: This article confuses me a bit. As said above, it reads like a book review? I came here because I was looking for information about the Fur trade in Canada which now redirects to North American fur trade. I added a hatnote in case someone was actually looking for this book. However, I've never really seen an article about a book look quite like this. If this article should be tagged as something, what would be appropriate? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah. If this were a new article, I'd draftify it, with a note to the editor regarding essays and original research. I'd tag this for no lead section, essay, and either original research or synth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Rather than a book review it, 95% reads like a summary of the contents of the book. Nothing wrong with a summary, but a wiki article needs to be more than that. North8000 (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Update & removal of tags

I added a lead section in response to the tag calling for one and also added an explanation that the article is a summary of the book and not a personal essay, original research etc. I have removed both of those tags. Back in 2007-2008 when I spent many months working on the biographical article on Harold Innis, editors suggested I create subpages on his books rather than trying to summarize them in his biographical entry. So, I created and linked to this page. The main article on Harold Innis was granted feature article status and was Wikipedia's featured article of the day on June 2, 2008. I have other FA-class articles to my credit including Ursula Franklin and Angus Lewis Macdonald so I do know a thing or two about Wikipedia's editing standards. Bwark (talk)